Page 160 - DHIS204_DHIS205_INDIAN_FREEDOM_STRUGGLE_HINDI

Unit 10: National Movements and Indian Independence

One INA battalion commanded by Shah Nawaz was allowed to accompany the Japanese Army to Notes
the Indo-Burma front and participate in the Imphal campaign. But the discriminatory treatment
which included being denied rations, arms and being made to do menial work for the Japanese
units, completely demoralized the INA men. The failure of the Imphal campaign, and the steady
Japanese retreat thereafter, quashed any hopes of the INA liberating the nation. The retreat which
began in mid-1944 continued till mid-1945 and ended only with the final surrender to the British
in South-East Asia. But, when the INA men were brought back home and threatened with serious
punishment, a powerful movement was to emerge in their defence.
Self-Assessment
3. Answer the following questions:
(i) By which revolution the slogan ‘Quit India’ was known?
(ii) What has the result of the failure of the Cripps Mission in April 1942?
(iii) On which date working committee was held at Wardha?
(iv) Which university students decided to spread the message of Quit India?

10.4 Indian Independence and Partition

The contradictory nature of the reality of 15 August 1947 continues to intrigue historians and
torment people on both sides of the border to this day. A hard-earned, prized freedom was won
after long, glorious years of struggle but a bloody, tragic Partition rent asunder the fabric of the
emerging free nation. Two questions arise. Why did the British finally quit? Why was Partition
accepted by the Congress?
The imperialist answer is that independence was simply the fulfilment of Britain’s self-appointed
mission to assist the Indian people to self-government. Partition was the unfortunate consequence
of the age old Hindu-Muslim rift, of the two communities’ failure to agree on how and to whom
power was to be transferred. The radical view is that independence was finally wrested by the
mass actions of 1946-47 in which many Communists participated, often as leaders. But the bourgeois
leaders of the Congress, frightened by the revolutionary upsurge struck a deal with the imperialist
power by which power was transferred to them and the nation paid the price of Partition.
These visions of noble design or revolutionary intent, frustrated by traditional religious conflict or
worldly profit, attractive as they may seem, blur, rather than illumine, the sombre reality. In fact,
the Independence-Partition duality reflects the success-failure dichotomy of the anti-imperialist
movement led by the Congress. The Congress had a two-fold task: structuring diverse classes,
communities, groups and regions into a nation and securing independence from the British rulers
for this emerging nation. While the Congress succeeded in building up nationalist consciousness
sufficient to exert pressure on the British to quit India, it could not complete the task of welding the
nation and particularly failed to integrate the Muslims into this nations. It is this contradiction—
the success and failure of the national movement — which is reflected in the other contradiction
— Independence, but with it Partition.
The final Round of the British Raj
The success of the nationalist forces in the struggle for hegemony over Indian society was fairly
evident by the end of the War. The British rulers had won the war against Hitler, but lost the one
in India. The space occupied by the national movement was far larger than that over which the Raj
cast its shadow. Hitherto unpoliticized areas and apolitical groups had fallen in line with the rest
of the country in the agitation over the INA trials. Men in the armed forces and bureaucracy
openly attended meetings, contributed money, voted for the Congress and let it be known that
they were doing so. The militancy of the politicized sections was evident in the heroic actions of
1942 and in the fearlessness with which students and others expressed their solidarity with INA
and RIN men. The success of the nationalist movement could be plotted on a graph of swelling
crowds, wide reach, and deep intensity of nationalist sentiment and the nationalist fervour of the
people.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 155